Lepri v. Levy
| Decision Date | 30 November 1943 |
| Citation | 315 Mass. 105,51 N.E.2d 959 |
| Parties | LEPRI v. LEVY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; J. Swift, Judge.
Action by Arthur Lepri, p.p.a., against Harry L. Levy for injuries sustained when pipes being attached to defendant's automobile fell off and struck plaintiff. Judgment was directed for defendant and the cause was reported with stipulation that judgment should be entered for plaintiff in a specified amount if there was error in directing the verdict.
Judgment ordered entered for plaintiff in accordance with stipulation.
Before FIELD, C.J., and LUMMUS, QUA, COX, and RONAN, JJ.
H. L. Barrett, of Boston, for plaintiff.
V. L. Scanlon, of Boston, for defendant.
A verdict for the defendant was directed after the jury had heard testimony which would warrant a finding of the facts now recited. The defendant, a hardware dealer having a store in Boston, called at the place of business of one Lewis, the plaintiff's employer, with reference to having his automobile repaired, and got a price for doing the work. He requested that some one call at his store some morning and drive the automobile to the repair shop. The plaintiff, a minor, who was employed by Lewis as a welder, came to the store at about eight-thirty on the morning of September 4, 1941. He met the defendant, who told him to go with Kominsky, an employee of the defendant, and pick up some pipes and to help Kominsky, and when they returned he would let the plaintiff have the automobile to drive it to the repair shop. Kominsky, accompanied by the plaintiff, drove the automobile to Friend Street, in Boston, where Kominsky got fifteen two-inch pipes of fifteen or twenty foot lengths. Kominsky first attempted to attach the pipes to the axles of the automobile which was a coupé, type, but he was unable to do so. He then attached a bent iron clamp to the right-hand door of the coupé, and he and the plaintiff put the pipes on this clamp with the front and rear ends resting upon the fenders. The coupé listed to the right, and the plaintiff directed Kominsky's attention to this. Kominsky testified that, when he had practically all of the pipes upon the coupé, ‘the last two or three lengths were sort of starting to roll off and he [the plaintiff] was at the front end of the car and he sort of caught and held them on there, and I tied the front end of the pipes, and I went to the back to tie that, and when I pulled on that the whole bundle rolled down’ and struck the plaintiff.
The judge ordered the jury to return a verdict for the defendant and, the parties having stipulated that judgment should be entered for the plaintiff in a specified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bagley v. Burkholder
...of ordinary negligence, are to be distinguished. See Thomas v. Fritz, 318 Mass. 622, 624-625, 63 N.E.2d 357. Compare Lepri v. Levy, 315 Mass. 105, 107, 51 N.E.2d 959; Roy v. Bacon, 325 Mass. 173, 175, 89 N.E.2d 512; Howes v. Kelman, 326 Mass. 696, 698-699, 96 N.E.2d 394; Hanlon v. White Fue......
-
Beaulieu v. Lincoln Rides, Inc.
...Mass. 89, 11 N.E.2d 922; Weida v. MacDougall, 300 Mass. 521, 16 N.E.2d 60; Donovan v. Johnson, 301 Mass. 12, 16 N.E.2d 62; Lepri v. Levy, 315 Mass. 105, 51 N.E.2d 959; Roy v. Bacon, 325 Mass. 173, 89 N.E.2d 512; Howes v. Kelman, 326 Mass. 696, 96 N.E.2d 394. There was nothing of a social na......
- Lepri v. Levy